Maryland paints a larger target on title companies.

Maryland’s highest court has confirmed a tort duty of care for title companies that search title, prepare abstracts to be relied upon by others, and issue title insurance commitments for insurance companies. The target for claims and lawsuits against title companies has just gotten bigger.

On January 29, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals decided 100 Investment v. Columbia Town Center Title,No. 19, Sept. Term, 2012, 2013 WL 322663, ___ A.3d ___ (2013), holding that your title company can now be sued for negligent title searching, and for preparation of an incorrect or incomplete title commitment.

Before this decision, your title company was only really exposed to claims for breach of contract. Trial courts routinely dismissed claims for negligence because the common law did not impose this extra duty.

The Court has now held that since title companies provide “services that have historically been performed by attorneys,” the title companies should be held to the same professional standards as if a licensed attorney had provided the service.

The Court also held that a title insurance company is not automatically responsible for the negligence of the title company issuing it’s policies.  The insurance company’s own liability to it’s customer is limited by language in the title policy to claims under the insurance contract, only.

This will change how claims arising from bad title searches, and incorrect title commitments are prosecuted, defended and settled. The settlement companies that compile abstracts and prepare commitments (and their errors & omissions carriers) now have increased exposure to claims and lawsuits. The title insurance companies, however, remain shielded by the limitations in their policies.

We can help you figure how this new rule impacts your claims.

Wall papering over the hole in the wall

The Wall Street Journal reports that the largest title insurers have made an agreement with Bank of America and other large lenders that will allow the lenders to obtain title insurance even when there is a Maryland foreclosure in the chain of title. Fear of "bad affidavits" runs deep within the industry, now.

But those of us who litigate in this area know that other ripples are crossing the pond. In lawsuits over bad settlements (whether brought by buyer, seller, or lender) the settlement officer's standard of care is always made an issue. Because of the many hats worn by a settlement officer (title agent, seller's escrow officer, buyer's escrow officer, etc.) the claim is always made that the settlement company breached its standard of care. Perhaps the settlement company is alleged to have closed over bad documents, affidavits, or it improperly disbursed, missed a lien or encumbrance, ignored closing instructions, or violated title underwriting guidelines (by the way, who would want to be in that business?).

Expect claims of "you should have known" wherever a Maryland foreclosure appears in the title chain. The agreement to insure over this stuff may make title "insurable," but it certainly doesn't mean it will always be deemed "marketable." And that claim will be made against the title agent/settlement company, in addition to the seller. And don't forget the underwriter, ready to pounce for breach of underwriting guidelines, seeking indemnity under that agency agreement!

The standard of care for a reasonable settlement company (and its non-delegable duty to search title and disclose) has been raised because of the recent "bad affidavit" issues created by our friends in the foreclosure bar. With the actual knowledge imparted by the sheer volume of reports in the popular media about the issues, the lender's remedial actions, and the Court's recent emergency rule changes, how can a settlement officer/abstractor ignore reference to a foreclosure action in the title chain? He must review that file! That is what the reasonable settlement agent in Maryland now must do...period.